R. v. Bulger, 1978 CarswellPEI 35

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 298(1.1)
Province or Territory: Prince Edward Island,
Offence: Killing, Other,
Animal: Cattle,
Type of Distress: Stealing a cow, dragging the animal behind a vehicle; animal deceased
Sentence: Appeal allowed: Bulger's sentence reduced from three years to two years' imprisonment. Mann's and Arsenault's sentences were each reduced from two years less one day to twelve months' imprisonment.
Legal Issue: Encourage/Aid/Assist, Ownership/Care/Control, Sentencing, Suffering, Unnecessary,

Three accused (Bennett Bulger, Bruce Mann, and Reginald Arsenault) were convicted by a jury of stealing a cow, contrary to s. 298(1.1) of the Criminal Code. The stolen cow belonged to a farmer in Prince Edward Island and had disappeared in August 1977.

At sentencing, the trial judge concluded that the cow had been alive when she was dragged approximately 8 miles and died along the way, describing the incident as an act of extreme cruelty. Based in part on this finding, Bulger received a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, while Mann and Arsenault each received sentences of two years less one day.

The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division, allowed the offenders’ sentence appeals and reduced all three sentences. The Court found that there was no evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusion that the cow had been alive when dragged or that the accused had cruelly killed the animal. The accused had been convicted only of cattle theft, not animal cruelty, and the trial judge improperly relied on an unproven allegation of cruelty when imposing sentence. As a result, Bulger’s sentence was reduced from three years to two years’ imprisonment. Mann’s and Arsenault’s sentences were reduced from two years less one day to twelve months’ imprisonment each.

This case emphasizes that a sentencing judge cannot increase a sentence based on facts that were not proven at trial. The appeal court stressed that if the Crown wished to pursue allegations of animal cruelty, the accused should have been charged under the separate animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code, highlighting the distinction between the offence of cattle theft and the offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

The Court also highlighted the importance of considering an offender’s criminal record at paragraphs 9-10 when determining sentence since Bulger received a harsher sentence than his co-accused due to his past criminal history. His past convictions involve theft, breaking and entering, or attempted theft.

R v Bulger

Pakzad v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONACRB 13

Statute: PAWS Act (ON), Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act,
Section: Appeal under sections 38(1) and 38(2)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Hoarding, Neglect, Other,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Failure to provide adequate food and proper sanitary conditions for 28 dogs.
Sentence: The Board ordered that the Statement of Account be reduced from $31,639.68 to $22,819.68. It also ruled that Pakzad could have his dog, Batch, returned if he paid $814.99 within 10 days and complied with all outstanding animal welfare orders
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Adequate: (providing adequate care)), Provincial case (Costs), Provincial case (Disposition of animals), Provincial case (Distress), Provincial case (Pre-trial disposition of animals), Provincial case (Procedure),

Mustafa Pakzad appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) after 28 pit bull-type dogs were removed from his residence in December 2021. AWS had initially investigated the property following complaints about the dogs’ living conditions and found unsanitary conditions, including excessive feces, a strong ammonia smell, and several underweight dogs.

After Pakzad failed to comply with an order requiring veterinary examinations and improved sanitary conditions, AWS obtained a warrant, returned to the residence, and removed all 28 dogs, finding that they remained in distress. Following the seizure, AWS issued an SOA totaling $31,639.68 for veterinary care, boarding, and other animal care expenses. Pakzad did not challenge the removal of the dogs but appealed the amount of the costs assessed against him.

The Animal Care Review Board determined that the removal of the dogs and the veterinary treatment provided were justified and necessary to relieve the animals’ distress. However, the Board found that the boarding costs charged by AWS were excessive. While the veterinary expenses were upheld as reasonable, the Board reduced the daily boarding rate from $35 to $25 per dog and varied the SOA from $31,639.68 to $22,819.68. The Board also calculated the costs associated with Pakzad’s primary dog, Batch, separately and ordered that Batch could be returned if Pakzad paid $814.99 and complied with all outstanding animal welfare orders.

This case shows the Board’s willingness to reduce unreasonable animal welfare enforcement costs while still holding owners accountable. A notable aspect of the decision was the Board’s recognition of the strong bond between Pakzad and his dog, Batch, and the positive role the dog had played in helping him improve his life (para. 31). As a result, the Board allowed Pakzad an opportunity to regain custody of Batch despite being unable to pay the full SOA.

https://canlii.ca/t/jnbxn
Pakzad v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector,

R. v. Adams, 2020 CarswellAlta 2755

Statute: Animal Protection Act (AB),
Section: s. 12(2) and s. 12(3) (animal ownership prohibition order)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Unknown,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Causing (unspecified) distress to his dog Gunther
Sentence: $7,500 fine, a $1,125 victim surcharge (total $8,625); three years of probation and a three-year animal prohibition order restricting his ownership of animals, with an exception for his dog Gunther
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Distress), Sentencing (Fines), Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Sentencing (Restitution orders),

Sean David Adams pleaded guilty under Alberta’s Animal Protection Act for causing distress to his two-year-old French bulldog, Gunther. The case proceeded directly to sentencing after Adams accepted responsibility for his actions, resulting in the cancellation of a scheduled two-day trial. Adams had no prior criminal record and Gunther had been living with a friend since the incident.

The Provincial Court of Alberta accepted a joint sentencing submission and imposed a fine of $7,500, plus a victim surcharge of $1,125, for a total penalty of $8,625. The court also ordered three years of probation and a three-year prohibition order restricting Adams from owning, possessing, or residing with animals, except for Gunther or another animal approved by police. Adams was also required to complete a pet care course and permit inspections of Gunther or any approved animal with reasonable notice by police. What is interesting is that the offender would be living in Ontario, and although the prohibition order was issued under Alberta legislation, the court ordered that he abide by it when in Ontario (paras. 18-20, 45, 56).

This case is importance because the court imposed a significant financial penalty despite Adams having no criminal record and pleading guilty. The decision also reflects a rehabilitative approach since it combines punishment with education and ongoing monitoring to promote responsible animal care.

R v Adams

R c JM, 2024 QCCQ 5715

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 264.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Uttering threats,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Threat to kill a dog (uttering threats)
Sentence: Global sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment, with credit for time served reducing the remaining custodial term to 21 months, followed by three years of probation.
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment),

The accused attended the victim’s residence, intoxicated, to remove his belongings after their relationship ended. He then violently assaulted the victim, confining her for several hours, destroying property after breaking into the residence, and threatening to kill the victim’s dog. Their 19-month-old child was present during this incident.

The accused was convicted of several offences, including assault causing bodily harm, assault with strangulation, sexual assault, forcible confinement, break and enter, mischief, and uttering threats, including threats to an animal. At sentencing, the court emphasized the seriousness of the violence, the abuse of trust in an intimate partner context, and the significant psychological harm to the victim. The court imposed a global sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, with credit for time served.

This case demonstrates that threats against animals can be treated as part of a broader pattern of coercive control and intimate partner violence, as in the violence link, and that courts may consider such threats when assessing an offender’s conduct and determining an appropriate sentence.

https://canlii.ca/t/k7d20
R. c. J.M 2024 QCCQ 5715

Côté c. R., 2023 QCCS 3239

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss. 235 and 182(b)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Fowl,
Type of Distress: Violent killing of sick poultry, including throwing animals against walls and filming the acts rather than following proper euthanasia protocols
Sentence: Court ordered that the accused remain in detention pending trial
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure, Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

The accused, Nicolas Côté, was charged with second-degree murder and indignity to a human body after killing and dismembering the victim. The case came before the Superior Court of Québec on an application for release pending trial (bail).

During the bail hearing, evidence was presented about the accused’ s past behaviour toward animals. Witnesses described how he worked at a poultry farm where he killed sick chicks and chickens, and that he sometimes did so in a violent manner, including throwing them against walls and filming the acts. The accused was also known to collect knives and had a strong interest in taxidermy.

The court denied bail and ordered the accused to remain detained. In reaching this decision, the judge considered several factors, including the extreme violence of the alleged crime, the strength of the evidence, and concerns about the accused’ s character and potential danger to the public. Evidence regarding the accused’ s treatment of animals was referenced as part of the broader assessment of his behaviour and state of mind.

The case demonstrates how evidence of violent behaviour toward animals may be used by courts to evaluate an accused’ s character, risk to the public, and dangerousness during bail proceedings, even when the accused is not charged with an animal-related offence.

 

https://canlii.ca/t/k7pgj
Côté c. R 2023 QCCS 3239

Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. T.B., 2011 ONSC 3905

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.1(1)(a); ss 1, 37(3), 59(2), 64, 65 of Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse, Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Neglect of dogs, entered as evidence in family law status review application concerning six children with special needs
Sentence: Pled guilty in 2008 to causing unnecessary suffering to their dogs X 2; Society application to make all six children Crown wards was granted
Legal Issue: Ownership/Care/Control, Suffering, Suitable care,

This decision involved a status review application concerning six children, ages 5 to 14, with significant special needs. The Society became involved with the family in 2000 because of lack of parental supervision, children’s behavioural problems, the parents’ convictions for animal cruelty and the filthy and unsafe housing conditions. The Society sought an order to make the three older children Crown wards with parental access and the three younger children Crown wards without access. The respondent parents wanted all children returned to their care

In September, 2007, the parents presented two severely emaciated shepherd-mix dogs to Lincoln County Humane Society, claiming they had found them as strays. Both dogs significantly underweight, dehydrated, severely malnourished, and unable to hold their own heads up. Animal Control Officer Todd Menard described this as “the worst case of animal starvation” he had ever seen (para. 134). The B.s were charged with cruelty to animals; Mr. M.B. was additionally charged with public mischief for lying about finding the dogs as strays (para. 135). On July 7, 2008, both parents pled guilty to two charges each of causing unnecessary suffering to their dogs (para. 136).

For the court’s analysis of the parents’ capability of giving sufficient care to their four children, it gave substantial weight to the animal cruelty evidence. The court drew parallels between how the parents treated the dogs and how they treated their children, claiming that the parents had limited knowledge of the needs of both of their children and pets, had failed to ensure those needs were met, and exhibited the willingness to deny the difficulty in providing necessary care to meet those needs (paras. 247-248).

In this case, the element of animal cruelty is substantively integrated into the court’s reasoning about ongoing protection concerns. The Court used it to demonstrate that the parents’ deficits in caregiving—particularly their failure to recognize needs, provide adequate care, and accept responsibility—were longstanding and deeply ingrained patterns, not temporary shortcomings. This directly supported the conclusion that the children remained in need of protection and that returning them to parental care was not in their best interests.

The Court ordered all six children to be made Crown wards, with access granted for the three older children and no access for the three younger children, basing on their analysis of the parent’s, M.B. and T.B.’s ability to care for them.

https://canlii.ca/t/fm0hp
Children_s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. T.B

Butler v Whalen, 1984 Carswell Nfld 178

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 401(a) now known as s. 445(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Newfoundland and Labrador,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Willful shooting and killing of a dog who the appellant believed was threatening his animals
Sentence: Appeal allowed in part - conviction upheld but absolute discharge granted to appellant
Legal Issue: Common defenses (Colour of right), Common defenses (Legal excuse), Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

On January 25, 1982, the appellant willfully and without lawful excuse shot and killed the respondent’s dog while it was in the appellant’s yard. At trial, he was convicted under section 401(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada and fined $100, or, in default of payment within 30 days, to 30 days’ imprisonment. Section 401(a) makes it an offence to “wilfully and without lawful excuse” kill a dog “kept for a lawful purpose.”

The appellant appealed, arguing that:

  1. The respondent did not keep the dog for a lawful purpose;
  2. The respondent failed to tether the dog as required by the Dog Act, 1976, which permits anyone to destroy a dog found killing, maiming, or worrying humans or livestock; and
  3. He shot the dog believing it threatened his sheep.

The key legal question was whether the appellant’s belief constituted a lawful excuse. Section 386(2) of the Criminal Code provides that no one is guilty if they acted with “legal justification or excuse” and “colour of right.” Evidence showed that the dog was not barking and did not chase the sheep while in the appellant’s yard.

The appellate court held that while there are circumstances in which a dog may be lawfully killed if attacking domestic animals, the dog in this case was not doing so. Accordingly, the conviction under section 401(a) was upheld, but the appellant was granted an absolute discharge.

 

BUTLER v. WHALEN

R v Weseen, 2026 ABKB 415

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss 445(1)(a), 445.1(1)(a) and 446(1)(b)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse, Killing, Neglect,
Animal: Rabbit,
Type of Distress: Killing and dismembering several rabbits, some of whom were kept as pets
Sentence: Global sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment, with 503 days’ credit for presentence custody; Lifetime animal prohibition order imposed under s. 447.1; DNA order and lifetime weapons prohibition
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Wilfulness,

These are the reasons for sentencing after a jury had found a 32-year-old first time offender guilty of 12 counts of animal cruelty under the Criminal Code. The court held a fact-finding endorsement hearing to determine whether it would accept as proven all essential facts to the jury’s guilty verdicts, and any other fact relevant to sentencing disclosed by the evidence at trial, details of which can be found here.

The Court reviewed the sentencing principles in the opening statements, relying on Parranto and Friesen to emphasize that a sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness or degree of culpability of the offender, and that for animal cruelty offences, deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing principles. They went on to quote from Chen and Alcorn to highlight that animal abuse crimes are crimes of violence that are often not sentenced to reflect that gravity and confirmed that animals are no longer viewed as chattels (paras. 5 to 7).

Among the abuse detailed under circumstances of the offence starting at paragraph 9 include amputating one rabbit’s foot with pliers and no pain or sedative medication, castrating another rabbit (Loki) with an X-Acto knife for spraying him, who then developed an infection that resulted in the offender breaking Loki’s neck, and beating and throwing around another rabbit (Henry), resulting in the animal’s death. The beating was captured on video (paras. 13 to 15).

The pre-sentence report discussed the circumstances of the offender (paras. 23 to 29), which revealed a long history of disordered alcohol and substance use beginning in his early teen years, leaving school in Grade 11 and working a variety of low-skill jobs in periods ranging from three months to two years, attributing the duration to either contract work or difficulties getting along with management, but no physical or emotional abuse. He began using methamphetamines in his late 20s because it produced positive feelings and helped ease his depression and ADHD and attributed his poor decision-making and offences to this use.

A psychiatric pre-sentence report (“SAFPC Report”) was also prepared, in which the authoring doctor stated that the offender “should be diagnosed with Polysubstance (primary crystal methamphetamine) Use Disorder with Past Episode of Drug-induced Psychosis, which has subsided after he was arrested and deprived of illicit substances” and that he “meets diagnostic criteria for Unspecified Personality Disorder with prominent paranoid, narcissistic and borderline traits”, noting that the offences “occurred during the time when he became dependent on crystal methamphetamine and while daily using this substance, he had some psychotic symptomatology (voices which did not give him any directions but irritated him and fueled his anger)” (para. 27). The doctor also reported that the offender presented as a “self-focused individual diagnosed with unspecified personality disorder with prominent paranoid, narcissistic and borderline traits who has poor coping strategy, and appeared to be short-tempered” and that his “history and the results of his observation at SAFPC suggest that he is emotionally unstable and has low stress tolerance. According to the results of the psychological risk assessment, various post-release stressors such as housing/employment strain; volatile intimate disputes, or perceived betrayal/rejection can contribute to his relapses into substance use, feelings of rage and attitudes supportive of punishment of animals or individuals” with a low to moderate risk of re-offending, which would substantially increase if the offender were to experience any of the listed post-release stressors (paras. 28-29).

The Court reported receiving three Victim Impact Statements, including one from Brad Nichols, Calgary Humane Society’s Director of Enforcement, who wrote that the community is upset and horrified by intentional animal abuse and cruelty, and that that it “will rightfully take pause in rehoming pets privately on online marketplaces based on awareness of these crimes, unable to trust there is a loving home on the other end of that transaction,” and that “a community should be able to trust that companion animals are valued, cared for and live free of abuse” (para. 31). Other Statements submitted were from a Calgary Police Service detective who had worked on the case, who indicated that investigating this file left her shocked despite having attended previous scenes involving murders, traumatic deaths, and other violent incidents and from the offender’s former girlfriend who said that her experience with the offender and his actions has resulted in her being diagnosed with PTSD and feeling like she can no longer trust her judgment (paras. 32 to 33).

The Court agreed with the Crown that the extensive pain and suffering involved, the brutality of violence and use of weapons, failure to seek veterinary care and allowing the victims to suffer, and the breach of trust and defencelessness of the vulnerable animal victims were considered aggravating factors were aggravating factors, with which defence counsel agreed (paras. 37 to 38). Defence counsel submitted a variety of mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of criminal record and pointed to the pre-sentencing report regarding the offender’s substance use disorder, but the Court gave those factors limited weight in reducing his moral culpability. It also found that the offender’s apology letter and expressions of remorse were more self-serving in that the focus was more on the impact of the offences on the offender himself – the loss of his relationships, his reputation, and his prior sense of identity, as well as the hardships of being in custody – with comparatively little acknowledgment of the harm he caused the rabbits and others affected by his conduct (paras. 47 to 48).

The Crown submitted nine cases in support of their sentencing position (paras. 49 to 52), including Nichols, Raugust and Geick; while defence relied on Ehbrecht, Purvis, Huston and Zhu which the Court found to be limited in parity (paras. 53 to 58).

The Court ultimately imposed the following sentences (at para. 62 to 63)

  • On Counts 2 and 3, regarding Smokey – concurrent 24-month sentences.
  • On Counts 5 and 6, regarding Loki – concurrent 18-month sentences.
  • On Count 7, regarding Chloe – 12 months.
  • On Counts 10 and 11, regarding Henry – concurrent 54-month sentences.
  • On Counts 13, 14, and 15, regarding the unnamed multiple rabbits – concurrent 24-month sentences.

These sentences are concurrent within each victim-specific sentence block, which the Court then treated as consecutive so as to better reflect distinct victims and episodes of offending over time. The aggregate sentence was reduced to 96 months, or 8 years, after totality that reflected the overall gravity of the offences and the offender’s moral blameworthiness. After having served 335 days in pretrial custody, a rate of 1.5 to 1 gave the offender 503 days’ credit, leaving him with 79 months left to serve. The Court also imposed a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition as well as a lifetime animal prohibition order “in light of the gravity of these offences, the breach of trust involved, and the need to protect animals from future harm” (para. 63).

This is the longest animal cruelty sentence in Alberta court history; previously it was Raugust who had been sentenced six and a half years for torturing and killing multiple cats.

https://canlii.ca/t/kl7m4
R v Weseen 2026 ABKB 415

R v Weseen, 2026 ABKB 71

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss. 445(1)(a), 445.1(1)(a) and 446(1)(b)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Rabbit,
Type of Distress: Injuring and killing many rabbits, some of whom the offender had named
Sentence: Court found facts as proven for sentencing: the offender had wilfully caused unnecessary pain, suffering, and injury to multiple rabbits and failed to provide suitable and adequate care
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure, Procedure,

This is a fact-finding endorsement from the court to determine whether it would accept as proven all essential facts to the jury’s guilty verdicts, and any other fact relevant to sentencing disclosed by the evidence at trial: Criminal Code, s 724(2). The offender had been charged with 15 counts of offences committed against rabbits (Smokey, Loki, Chloe, and Henry) as well as multiple unnamed rabbits, by killing or injuring them and causing them unnecessary pain, injury or suffering. On June 28, 2025, a jury had found the offender guilty of 12 counts; the Crown had previously withdrawn three counts.

Some of the acts of violence committed toward the rabbits include: severing of limbs and castration without sedation or veterinary care/oversight, improper handling causing one rabbit’s skin to separate from the muscle in her neck and beating and throwing another rabbit around while holding their back legs.

The court accepted the testimony of forensic veterinarian Dr. Margaret Doyle, who had examined several of the rabbit victims and found that the injuries were made intentionally by the offender. It decided against listing all of the injuries caused to the multiple rabbits – well over a dozen unnamed in addition to the four named rabbits – due to their graphic nature (para. 6, 1-24).

Defence counsel invited the court to make other findings “based on what the offender told the police officer regarding his mental health issues, personal circumstances, including financial circumstances and substance abuse, and voices he says he heard in his head at the time of the offences” (para. 8), but the court declined to accept those as fact and instead wait for the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre Psychiatric/Psychological Risk Assessment and Pre-sentence Report.

https://canlii.ca/t/khz28
R v Weseen 2026 ABKB 71

R v Kabecz and Lima, 2026 MBKB: Reasons for sentence

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.1
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Bird, Cat, Exotic, Fish, Rabbit, Rodent,
Type of Distress: Torture and killing of more than 90 animals, recorded and distributed for commercial gain
Sentence: 12 years' imprisonment (less time-served); a lifetime prohibition against having care or control over any animals, and DNA orders for each offender
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

This summary is from the sentencing decision made in the Winnipeg animal crush case, where the male and female offenders both pled guilty with a recommended sentence of 12 years of imprisonment submitted jointly by Crown and defence counsel. The sentencing submissions can be found here, and the plea matter is here.

The Court opens proceedings with a harsh rebuke for the offenders: “The depravity is stunning. In over 40 years as a lawyer, and as a judge, I have not seen any facts come close to this. Absolutely stunning. You tortured and killed 90 animals for your own twisted gratification. I cannot begin to conceive the suffering of each of those defenceless animals as you tortured them to death for your own deviant sexual pleasure and profit” (p. T1).

This was followed by a quote from the Winnipeg Humane Society’s Community Impact Statement, where the Court noted that animals are vulnerable, “in particular cats because they do not have their own voices and so many are feral with no one looking out for them”. It then refers to the anxiety and distress the animals would have experienced from the torture inflicted on them and “in some cases from having to watch as other animals were tortured and killed in front of them”, and how death was not instantaneous for these animals who would have felt terror as their suffering was prolonged” (p. T1).

Drawing from the evidence that had been presented, the Court remarked on the other plans made by the offenders for their enterprise, citing communications where they discussed plans “to obtain a pregnant dog and kill each puppy on video at the moment of its birth; finding a homeless man and a dog to kill; and fantasize about getting a human baby so you could torture it for your sexual pleasure and profit”, indicating that they were fortunate that their enterprise had been interrupted before it could escalate.

The Court deemed the moral blameworthiness of both offenders to be at the highest level and showed surprise that, prior to this, the couple had led “unremarkable” lives: they had gone to school, had jobs and came from good and loving families (p. T2). Despite this, the Court seemed somewhat encouraged by the behaviour of the offenders while in custody awaiting trial, that they appeared to be taking responsibility for their conduct, participating in available programming and productively working with the staff at their facilities, with no reports of any issues.

The offenders were sentenced to 12 years (minus time served) as set out by the Crown and their counsel, with the breakdown as follows:

  • Counts 2 and 3: Five years on each count concurrent to each other;
  • Counts 4 and 5: Five years for each, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentences on the previous two counts; and
  • On counts 1 and 6: Two years on each, concurrent but consecutive to counts 4 and 5.

They were also sentenced to lifetime prohibitions against owning, care or control of any animals: “You can’t even be in a house where animals are, and that includes birds” (p. T3), as well as ordered to provide DNA samples.

This case sets a new benchmark in animal cruelty sentencing, having the distinction of almost doubling the previous Canadian jail sentencing record of 6.5 years for animal cruelty charges given to “a psychopath and a sociopath with bleak prospects for rehabilitation and an overall moderate to high risk to reoffend” who had pleaded guilty to nine animal cruelty charges for the torture of nine cats and killing of seven.

Reasons for sentence - Kabecz and Lima - 26FEB11